Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Miller et al. find benefits of Medicaid for pregnant mothers in 1980s carry over two generations

Starr's findings account for some of the 19% black-white gap in federal sentencing

Frey says suburbs are aging, cities draw millennials

More News

Highlights

Bailey et al. find higher income among children whose parents had access to federal family planning programs in the 1960s and 70s

U-M's campus climate survey results discussed in CHE story

U-M honors James Jackson's groundbreaking work on how race impacts the health of black Americans

U-M is the only public and non-coastal university on Forbes' top-10 list for billionaire production

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

Psychological Research Online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet

Publication Abstract

Kraut, R.M., J. Olson, M. Banaji, A. Bruckman, J. Cohen, and Mick P. Couper. 2004. "Psychological Research Online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet." American Psychologist, 59(2): 106-117.

As the Internet has changed communication, commerce, and the distribution of information, so too it is changing psychological research. Psychologists can observe new or rare phenomena online and can do research on traditional psychological topics more efficiently, enabling them to expand the scale and scope of their research. Yet these opportunities entail risk both to research quality and to human subjects. Internet research is inherently no more risky than traditional observational, survey, or experimental methods. Yet the risks and safeguards against them will differ from those characterizing traditional research and will themselves change over time. This article describes some benefits and challenges of conducting psychological research via the Internet and offers recommendations to both researchers and institutional review boards for dealing with them

DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 (Full Text)

Public Access Link

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next